I remember the chances we missed and also the chances other teams teams missed. We make more of those missed chances while in reality they weren't as easy as what we see from other top team. Just watching the FA cup today and arsenal were missing the kind of chances we dont even have. Most times we have the wrong players on the end of those opportunities and they are much harder to score than what we try to claim.
There are 3 players playing behind the CF that should be the primary creators but instead you reference Pogba and Zlatan as our best creators - that is dysfunctional. Zlatan should be on the end of those chances not creating them while Pogba should be more of a outside the box threat and making late runs and not be the primary creator.
Griezmann is very clinical and will score those difficult chances, but it only hides the fundamental problem. Griezmann would increase our goal tally but when he is absent, we will go back to our struggling ways. Griezmann will not make the other players better goal scorers.
On the other hand, a creative player will provide more and easier chances which (even if our conversion rate doesnt improve) will also increase our goal tally. But, unlike Griezmann, the availability of more and easier chances will help the other players by increasing their confidence and form, such that they may start to finish even the difficult chances. With that, even when the creative player is absent, we can still score from the difficult chances we get.
All the other teams have that creativity which we lack. Our most creative player is Mata but he is well below the likes of Ozil, De Bruyne and Eriksen in terms of chances created per 90mins.
Avg chances created per 90mins
Mata - 2.45
Pogba - 1.97
Zlatan - 1.70
Mkhi - 1.66
Eriksen 3.16
De Bruyne - 3.16
Ozil - 3.10
Hazard - 2.68
D. Silva -2.67
Countiinho 2.62
Please note that chances created is a pass that leads to a shot on goal. Whether the goal is scored or not does not affect this stat and thus you cannot blame our poor conversion rate for it.
Mostly agree. And partly not agree (Griezmann will not make the other players better goal scorers). Well I'm not speaking from the perspective of Griezmann's super fans, but from factual point of view.
First of all, while some statistics can best describe certain attribute (ie Goals/game for Finishing), they are only one of the best indicators. That is, no single statistic metric can describe the full picture. Hence, statiscally, one of the best way to use it is to combine a few key metrics, coupled with discretion to come to the final conclusion.
My point is that, from a soccer fan point of view, unless someone watch Griezmann's game as much as possible, instead of just youtube-ing highlights, and study some statistics is the best way to judge.
I have been following Griezmann for almost every game for the past few years.
@ Sociedad he mostly played as RWF. @ Atletico he mostly played as SS, sometimes RWF/CF/AM. He is versatile, abit like Messi in this respect.
My view is based on two parts. First being statistics, second being my personal discretional judgement by watching most of the games. Well of coz my judgement here is questionable.
Two of the best stats to describe his overall ability: Goals, Assist
Across all competitions:
.....Goals-Assist-Total
13/14.....20...5...25
14/15.....25...6...31
15/16.....32...7...39
16/17.....26...12...38
Mathematically, his stats speaks for itself. (PS: impressive four seasons. Had been improving, and stabilized last season)
Discretionally, watching most of the games, the statistics also confirm that his primary attribute is
finishing, secondary one is
playmaking (key passes/chances created/assists......).
Undeniably, his finishing is agreed by most here. Arguably, his playingmaking ability is being questioned here. So let's study his playingmaking:
Compared to EPL Top 3 playmakers, Stats per 90 min:
....................Eriksen........DeBruyne...Ozil.......Griezmann
...(% of Griez) / (Average of Top 3 players)
Key Passes..........2.7..........2.6..........2.8..........1.8..........
67%
Chances..............3.2..........3.2..........3.1..........1.9..........
60%
Assists................0.4..........0.6..........0.3..........0.2..........
46%
Goals..................0.2..........0.2..........0.3..........0.5..........214%
Mathematically,
his playmaking abilities, as indicated by the
"percentage of Griezmann divide by Average of Top 3 Players" gives 67% 60% 46%.
Then further average these 3 numbers =
58%, which is
roughly half as good as the Top 3 EPL playmakers.
(The goal stats is just for your interests)
Discretionally, watching most of the games, some of his playmaking attributes that are not shown on "youtube highlight", which include:
1. Key passes
2. Chances
3. Assists
4. Link up play
5. Movement off the ball
6. Skills
The 4th, 5th, and 6th point are not studied statiscally (due to lack of reliable indicators). Watching most of the games, I would say his overall playmaking abilities, as shown above are, at least better than all of our attackers.
The conclusion, his playmaking does exist, to a lesser extent. Finishing is primary, Playmaking is secondary.
(This point shows that his best position is not #9, as some have argued here)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to how Griezmann would affect our attacking....
Argument wrt dysfunctional attacking, some argue its due to our finishing, some say playmaking, some say tactical by Jose due to injury/conservative/etc......
Tactical, Injury all points aside (well all factors matter, but its hard to make a judgement if taking all these into account), from the perspective of finishing and playmaking, my view is that, Griezmann's both
finishing and
playmaking attribute, is definitely
one of the key solutions, but not all of the solution, simple as that.
Also, realistically, excluding Messi/Ronaldo/Neymar/Bale (very unlikely to sign), all else being equal, Griezmann is our best bet on the market, given the inflated price. (PS: How many times in history can we buy a Balon d'Or player IMO
)
really but:
